Gene Kranz's Remarkable Self Incriminating Gaffe, The Storied Ship, " Fraudulent Apollo 13 "

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

How much power does that TV camera draw? Not much. They had the radios running at the time all you need to do is put your low power tv signal on the private radio loop that was already powered up.

Why waste the bandwidth? There are more crucial things to monitor.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Would you really want your loved ones watching a tv feed if something went wrong, and you didn't make it back?

They were severely limited on power as well. They had to try multiple times until they found a power up checklist that worked without them drawing too much power. The last thing they would do is use something that draws MORE power that they didn't have.

With only 15 minutes of power left in the CM, CapCom told the crew to make their way into the LM. Fred and Jim Lovell quickly floated through the tunnel, leaving Jack to perform the last chores in the Command Module. The first concern was to determine if there were enough consumables to get home? The LM was built for only a 45-hour lifetime, and it needed to be stretch to 90. Oxygen wasn't a problem. The full LM descent tank alone would suffice, and in addition, there were two ascent-engine oxygen tanks, and two backpacks whose oxygen supply would never be used on the lunar surface. Two emergency bottles on top of those packs had six or seven pounds each in them. (At LM jettison, just before reentry, 28.5 pounds of oxygen remained, more than half of what was available after the explosion).

Power was also a concern. There were 2181 ampere hours in the LM batteries, Ground controllers carefully worked out a procedure where the CM batteries were charged with LM power. All non-critical systems were turned off and energy consumption was reduced to a fifth of normal, which resulted in having 20 percent of our LM electrical power left when Aquarius was jettisoned. There was one electrical close call during the mission. One of the CM batteries vented with such force that it momentarily dropped off the line. Had the battery failed, there would be insufficient power to return the ship to Earth.

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

How exactly is a television camera an essential system?

On the Moon, Neil Armstrong Never Took Off His Shirt, The PHONY !!!, Proves Apollo Fraudulent....

So indeed, there is greatness, and in your face studliness, I am totally BADness, on this beautiful planet. However, Armstrong is in possession of no such "BADness". He possesses only Heiny Jive LIES. The sorry boy, Armstrong, is indeed nothing more and nothing less than a garden variety pimply faced Eagle Scout. And to be sure, none of those clowns, those pretenders, those ain'tstronauts, ever really flexed their muscles, not really, now did they ? Think about that .

Being here at the U.S, Olympic swimming trials is a nice reminder of our capabilities. Again, the world of swimming , the world of Sport is a world of very limited purview, but at least it is a real world, a genuine world, a legitimate world, a world of meaningful achievement.



As must be evident by now to many, I've gone very slow with respect to this particular thread's pace. It undoubtedly will be an extremely long thread given the breadth of the subject and the reference detail that will be required.

I have intentionally made an effort to encourage others to read and study on their own here early on, but will now begin to disclose and present more from my side. Fasten your seat belts, Apollo is about to blow up big time. From Kranz's own book, FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION, here is what Kranz claimed to have said 15 minutes from the time of the "Houston, we've had a problem" call;

“Now, let’s everybody keep cool. The LM is still attached, the spacecraft is good. So if we need to get back home, we have the LM to do a good portion of it with. “Let’s make sure that we don’t blow the [remaining] command module electrical power with the batteries, or do anything that would cause us to lose fuel cell 2. We have to keep the oxygen working and would like to save the attitude control propellants. We are in good shape to get home. “Let’s solve the problem, team . . . let’s not make it any worse by guessing.”

Kranz, Gene (2001-02-21). Failure Is Not an Option (p. 315). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.


Check out my EECOM link again. This EECOM tape comes from Sy Leibergot himself. this is what he took home with him after this sorry mess was over and our pockets were emptied;

plus.google.com...

This EECOM tape covers the first 28 minutes plus of the drama, from the time of the "Houston we've had a problem" call to roughly half an hour in.

Is Kranz's comment reasonable given what you hear during the first 15 minutes of the EECOM tape ???????

Let's start with that.

NASA, PREPARE TO BE BOARDED.....

reply to post by decisively

Again, the world of swimming , the world of Sport is a world of very limited purview, but at least it is a real world, a genuine world, a legitimate world, a world of meaningful achievement.

How old are you again? Please google the word "doping."

reply to post by decisively

Is Kranz's comment reasonable given what you hear during the first 15 minutes of the EECOM tape ?

Absolutely. Gene Kranz himself uses the expression "fog of war." Why don't you quote bits like that?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

How much power does that TV camera draw? Not much. They had the radios running at the time all you need to do is put your low power tv signal on the private radio loop that was already powered up.

First, because of the situation at hand, they were already trying to conserve as much battery as possible. Second the TV camera itself drew 6.25 watts at 28 vdc. The Data Storage Equipment, if it were to be used required 40 watts nominal, 70 watts peak at 28 vdc. That does not include any lights or the transmitter array. In other words, yes it would pull a great amount of power from the batteries.

Apollo Operations Handbook page 2.8-23

reply to post by decisively

The sorry boy, Armstrong, is indeed nothing more and nothing less than a garden variety pimply faced Eagle Scout. And to be sure, none of those clowns, those pretenders, those ain'tstronauts, ever really flexed their muscles, not really, now did they ? Think about that .

i think not..



apollo 11 LRRR: 23.59kg
apollo 11 PSEP: 47.7kg

now given you believe they never went to the moon they must have done this on earth.. look at aldrin.. 47kg on his left arm, and its bent as well..

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by decisively

 

Is Kranz's comment reasonable given what you hear during the first 15 minutes of the EECOM tape ?

Absolutely. Gene Kranz himself uses the expression "fog of war." Why don't you quote bits like that?

Hmmm. The Fog of War reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin. Which was another US government lie.

reply to post by decisively


I think you have finally lost it. Your last post doesn't even begin to make sense. With the bold claim that since Armstrong didn't take his shirt off on the moon all of Apollo is a fake you know I actually read this one too.

I see instead of replying to the posts on your other threads you have been hiding out here. Your transparency is astonishing. I have been checking all these threads the last few weeks hoping for an admition of guilt from you but I realize that is never going to come. I personally am done wasting my time with these garbage threads and will report every single new one I see from here on.

Good luck guys.

reply to post by sputniksteve

The Phony Tank is in your court.

As best I can tell sputniksteve, not a single individual from your side has reviewed the EECOM tapes for him/herself. Certainly no one has made a single substantive comment on the tapes as so far presented.

I shall begin to post the others soon enough, though they are not needed in a sense as this first one is the critical one, covering the period of Kranz's premature comment as regards the LM. It does not seem that those from your side of the debate are even familiar with the "text" of Kranz's speech. As such, not a one of you is in a position to begin to criticize that which I have presented so far.

Try this on for size sputniksteve, as you seem to enjoy a direct challenge; the Cortright Commission(Apollo 13 Accident Investigation Commission) claimed that aluminum may have burned in O2 tank two, and that aluminum fuel may have served in providing some of the requisite energy to blow the tank(Teflon being the other alleged fuel candidate). I say this is a bogus claim about aluminum possibly burning. I say that the Cortright Commision provided no substantive evidence to support this claim. What kind of aluminum did the tank feature ? How much of said aluminum type would be required to burn in order to heat the oxygen enough, heat the tank enough, to increase its pressure and cause it to blow ? How is it possible for 10-20 joules worth of spark(Cortright Commission's claim regarding the energy available from the exposed wires to set the tank off) to ignite aluminum ?

The tank is in your court. The Cortright Report is a Public Document, simply google it, and be sure to pay special attention to the appendix that features the details of the experiments they did in support of their claims.

I say it is all BULL , and I OFFER THE CORTRIGHT COMMISSION'S OWN REPORT TO PROVE MY CLAIM. No where in those experimental details do we find anything to support what they alleged may have been true as regards aluminum burning in the context of the Apollo 13 "disaster"/accident.

Apollo is full on fake and it is your side that reels with embarrassment when these simple facts are sited and so exposed. It is beyond absurd accusing me of "hiding" . Every one of my claims is well supported by references, except in those cases where I specifically indicate buy point is purely speculative.

So show us all sputniksteve, show us the part in the Cortright Report, show us one of their experiments that helps the commission's scientists build even a remotely credible story with respect to their claims about the possibility of aluminum burning and so blowing the tank.

For all those following this thread, keep in mind how very important this point is. If any of this is real, they have to know EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS THAT HAPPENED TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. IF THEY SAY ALUMINUM BURNED, OR MIGHT HAVE BURNED, THEY MUST SHOW US ALL, WHAT KIND, HOW MUCH AND HOW IT WAS THAT THE ALUMINUM STARTED TO COMBUST. IF THEY CANNOT SHOW THIS, AND THEY DID NOT, APOLLO IS FULL ON FRAUDULENT, AND SO IT IS IS IS ...

As I shall show, and in a sense already have, as those posting in opposition to me will not be able to find the requisite experimental support in the Cortright documents, Apollo must be phony, as they are claiming to be able to remedy a problem(potentially burning aluminum) they do not understand. How can they send Apollo 14 into space if they don't know what blew 13's tank, if they have no experimental evidence to support their claims ?

reply to post by decisively

For all those following this thread, keep in mind how very important this point is. If any of this is real, they have to know EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS THAT HAPPENED TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. IF THEY SAY ALUMINUM BURNED, OR MIGHT HAVE BURNED, THEY MUST SHOW US ALL, WHAT KIND, HOW MUCH AND HOW IT WAS THAT THE ALUMINUM STARTED TO COMBUST. IF THEY CANNOT SHOW THIS, AND THEY DID NOT, APOLLO IS FULL ON FRAUDULENT, AND SO IT IS IS IS ...

Unlike an airplane crash, they did not have the physical wreckage to perform direct forensics on. As usual, you're not making any real-life sense.

As I shall show, and in a sense already have, as those posting in opposition to me will not be able to find the requisite experimental support in the Cortright documents, Apollo must be phony, as they are claiming to be able to remedy a problem(potentially burning aluminum) they do not understand. How can they send Apollo 14 into space if they don't know what blew 13's tank, if they have no experimental evidence to support their claims ?

As usual, there is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. How's the swimming going, Doc?

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by sputniksteve


Try this on for size sputniksteve, as you seem to enjoy a direct challenge; the Cortright Commission(Apollo 13 Accident Investigation Commission) claimed that aluminum may have burned in O2 tank two, and that aluminum fuel may have served in providing some of the requisite energy to blow the tank(Teflon being the other alleged fuel candidate). I say this is a bogus claim about aluminum possibly burning. I say that the Cortright Commision provided no substantive evidence to support this claim. What kind of aluminum did the tank feature ? How much of said aluminum type would be required to burn in order to heat the oxygen enough, heat the tank enough, to increase its pressure and cause it to blow ? How is it possible for 10-20 joules worth of spark(Cortright Commission's claim regarding the energy available from the exposed wires to set the tank off) to ignite aluminum ?

The tank is in your court. The Cortright Report is a Public Document, simply google it, and be sure to pay special attention to the appendix that features the details of the experiments they did in support of their claims.

I say it is all BULL , and I OFFER THE CORTRIGHT COMMISSION'S OWN REPORT TO PROVE MY CLAIM. No where in those experimental details do we find anything to support what they alleged may have been true as regards aluminum burning in the context of the Apollo 13 "disaster"/accident.

Which part of "may" do you not understand? They did not say it definitely did - even you don't say that they said so. Aluminium burns - so it is POSSIBLE that burning aluminium MAY have contributed.

They do not actually need any specific tests to suggest that as a possibility.

However there was no need for ANY aluminium to burn at all - you made various claims on page 1 about the tank, and I showed how you were completely wrong then, so here's a repeat of why you are still completely wrong - www.abovetopsecret.com...:

the full commission report is available here

the report does NOT say that 1.1lbs of Teflon burned.

It says that 1.1lbs of Teflon was available as fuel as part of the O2 tank (Table 4.1 Materials Available within Oxygen tank), along with .8 lbs Al, 2.2 lbs stainless steel, and 1.7 lbs inconel alloys.

A detailed list of the makeup of every component inside the tank (motors, fans, sensors) etc is given in Appendix D, pages 49-58.

so the amount of aluminium is given, as is its location. However it was not necessary for it to burn in order to cause the rupture - the amount of teflon there was perfectly adequate to cause that - on page 4.38 it says that this amount of teflon was "more than sufficient" to acount for the recorded temperature and pressure changes, and that the time frame for them (relatively slow increases taking over 1 minute) weer consistent with the burning of teflon.

Appendix F is "Special tests and analysis" and includes analysis of the energy requirements for ignition and combustion of teflon, and a master list of all tests and analysis performed.

Wherever you got the idea that 1.1 lbs of teflon represents some sort of mystery is unknown - but that source is just plain wrong.

Repeating incorrect claims hoping people have forgotten that they are wrong does not make them any less wrong!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Tearing 'em a new one

Read this first; www.google.com... QTdprCRAg&usg=AFQjCNEGuLxdWUAWwfhsrLMeGiwXBaEgVg&sig2=1Nqk1yeB9jF0E-YnjjAX1Q

I understand the issue as regards "possibility " very well here. My point of course is that they must launch Apollo 14 with any potential aluminum problems corrected. And we can clearly see they never made an attempt to identify such problems, the Cortright Report of course being a sham.

Let's proceed now to the commission scientists' major claim, that the burning of 1.1 pounds of Teflon was more likely than not responsible for the blowing of the tank.

First of all, the commission's story is that the tank started with 1.1 pounds of Teflon and was heated for an extended period of time to roughly 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It was this heating that allegedly exposed the wiring by way of the Teflon insulation's "removal".

Now any genuine forensics specialist would have obtained such a tank and heated it to 1000 degrees F for that very same, alleged, prolonged period of time. This, to determine if said Teflon insulation could in fact be lost from the wiring surface by the process of heating, and so expose the underlying metal. If this in fact could be shown, a forensics specialist would go on to see how much of the original 1.1 pounds of Teflon remained in a state available to the system for combustion. How much wiring was exposed by the alleged heating ? How much Teflon was available for combustion ? We shall never know, as the appropriate experiments were simply never done. Let's move on....

Let's assume that they had done the above, heated the tank to 1000 degrees, and had shown that x amount of wiring was exposed. Let's be super generous and agree with the commission's bogus story, just to press our point. Let's give them, as unbelievable as that would be, the fact that after heating to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, all 1.1 pounds of Teflon was available to the system for combustion. Now for their scenario to be supported by experiment, they would have to show that the 10-20 joule(energy amount) spark which they alleged ignited the Teflon was SUFFICIENT TO ACTUALLY DO THE SAME. There is no discussion in this fraudulent , scientific forgery of a Cortright Commission Report as to whether the 10-20 joules of energy alleged to have been supplied by the "spark" was adequate activation energy wise(en.wikipedia.org...) to start Teflon(or aluminum for that matter) burning. There is no experimental support for this, the Commission's absolutely inane claim.

For the Commission to back their ridiculous claims, they would need to actually blow a tank or two. Run 10-20 joules through a hyper-cool oxygen environment, THE EXACT ENVIRONMENT THEY CLAIMED WAS THE SCENE OF THE "EXPLOSION" AND SIMPLY SHOW US THAT YES INDEED, THAT AMOUNT OF JUICE COULD START THE ALLEGED QUANTITY OF TEFLON AND/OR AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM BURNING TO RELEASE THE REQUISITE ENERGY/HEAT TO RAISE THE TANK'S PRESSURE AND BLOW IT.

WAS ANY OF THIS DONE !!!!??????? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

THIS REPORT IS THE BIGGEST JOKE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF FRAUDULENT, COOKED BOOK, MADE UP, FANTASY, CHEATING CHEATING CHEATING PRETEND SCIENCE.

(From, www.boeing.com...;

"The heat leak from the Apollo cryogenic tanks, which contained hydrogen and oxygen, was so small that if one hydrogen tank containing ice were placed in a room heated to 70 degrees F, a total of 8-1/2 years would be required to melt the ice to water at just one degree above freezing. It would take approximately 4 years more for the water to reach room temperature. "

From the NASA reference above that opened this post, CHAPTER 4 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF APOLLO 13 ACCIDENT;

"The burst pressure of the oxygen tank is about 2200 psi at -150° F, over twice the normal operating pressure at that temperature. The relief valve is designed to relieve pressure in the oxygen tank overboard at a pressure of approximately 1000 psi. The oxygen tank dome is open to the vacuum between the inner and outer tank shell and contains a rupture disc designed to blow out at about 75 psi.")

The challenge to the other side is to go through the report and show us how they get from their experiments to their conclusions. Again, I OFFER THEIR OWN REPORT AND THE ABSENCE OF EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIMS AS PROOF OF MY OWN CLAIM THAT THIS WAS A SHAM COMMISSION, AND AS SUCH, APOLLO 13 AND ALL OF APOLLO IS 10 PLUS BOGUS PHONY FAKE FRAUDULENT.

Readers would be correct in coming to the conclusion that here in this thread, the NASA boys are about to have their Heinies torn off and handed to them in a way never done heretofore.

reply to post by decisively

I understand the issue as regards "possibility " very well here. My point of course is that they must launch Apollo 14 with any potential aluminum problems corrected.

you realise you just wasted your entire post worrying about the fuel instead of the ignition??

the problem isnt aluminium, the problem isnt even teflon.. the problem is the ignition, where it came from and how to stop it from happening again. [color=cyan]the damaged wires caused the ignition of the teflon coating which caused the explosion.

why is teflon or aluminium not the problem?? they are combustible, yes given the correct environment. but without the ignition how is it going to ignite? do you want them to remove all aluminium and teflon from the O2 tanks, remove the source of the fuel?? in that case you better remove the propulsion fuel as well, as that too is highly volatile.

the rest of your post is completely pointless now, because you failed to recognise this simple issue.


p.s. im not surprised that you worship balotelli as a "hero" given how immature he can be with a flagpole, and you and your heiny. but i do wonder why you call athletes "hero's" when they are nothing more than entertainers? and more often than not are doping.

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Tearing 'em a new one

Read this first; www.google.com... QTdprCRAg&usg=AFQjCNEGuLxdWUAWwfhsrLMeGiwXBaEgVg&sig2=1Nqk1yeB9jF0E-YnjjAX1Q

I understand the issue as regards "possibility " very well here. My point of course is that they must launch Apollo 14 with any potential aluminum problems corrected. And we can clearly see they never made an attempt to identify such problems, the Cortright Report of course being a sham.

No - it makes you look like a moron. Aluminium burns. It has always been known that aluminium burns. teflon burns too. In fact almost everything you can think of will burn.

Making a space craft out of materials tha are completely non-flammable is not a serious proposition.

Let's proceed now to the commission scientists' major claim, that the burning of 1.1 pounds of Teflon was more likely than not responsible for the blowing of the tank.

First of all, the commission's story is that the tank started with 1.1 pounds of Teflon and was heated for an extended period of time to roughly 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It was this heating that allegedly exposed the wiring by way of the Teflon insulation's "removal".

Wrong again.

The heating to 1000 or so degrees, over the course of roughly a minute, could have been caused by the combustion of the teflon on the tank - which was caused by the short circuits.

The heating did NOT cause the removal of the insulation - it was EXACTLY the other way around:

Here's the sequence:
1/ insulation sparks or otherwise starts combustion
2/ teflon around tank probably ignites
3/ tank heats because of insulation combusting

I covered this already.

Now any genuine forensics specialist would have obtained such a tank and heated it to 1000 degrees F for that very same, alleged, prolonged period of time. This, to determine if said Teflon insulation could in fact be lost from the wiring surface by the process of heating, and so expose the underlying metal.

Except of course since that is not what happened why would they bother>

The know the calorific content of teflon - how much heat it generates when it burns. They know the calorific content required to heat the tank - hence they know that combusting the teflon had more than enough calorific content to heat the tanks.

If you cannot even get the basic sequence right I guess it is little wonder your "logic" is also so badly screwed.